In other words, we must be cautious on instances where the author intended the character to be sympathetic but whatever we see says otherwise. Same goes for the inverse.
I suppose more focus is going to be placed on how the audience thinks of the character regardless of author intent. There's a reason this trope is YMMV in the first place.

Shaoken

04:11:18 AM Mar 31st 2013

Although it's soon (relatively) going to be a main page trope since the amount of criteria and precedent on who can qualify has removed any hint of subjectivity, since Monsters are only added by concensses based on their deeds.

manhandled

07:07:29 AM Aug 2nd 2014

Still nobody to argue about the plans to make CM a main page trope, and thus to be taken to heart?

Shaoken

01:11:05 AM Sep 3rd 2014

We're down to the last two or three main pages to clean up and then we'll start the discussion.

manhandled

07:28:30 PM Sep 6th 2014edited by 99.226.231.38

@mostly above: Hmmm, makes me wonder if incidental complete monsters (the author wasn't counting on a character being a CM, just trying to show us he/she's a really bad person, but nails the three crites anyway) happen...

Also, is author's intent still irrelevant even if this is a mainpage trope?

@Shaoken, directly above: What few main pages left before moving on to this?

Following the description of Shadow Archetype, "it's the part of the personality that embodies everything a character, called the 'Self', doesn't like about themselves, the things they deny and project on to others. To show these things to the audience we need an embodiment of some sort." I guess that nothing in the description of All-Loving Hero implies that the character have a really negative side.

•Gabriel Miller is the Big Bad of the second half of the Alicization Arc, a cold sociopath even as a child, Gabriel manages to assault the Ocean Turtle and enter into the Underworld in the super-account of Vector, god of darkness, with the intention of capture the only fully developed Artificial Fluctlight and brainwash her into be his submissive wife and "start a new life in a new world". With his new godlike powers, Gabriel turns the turbulent Seven Lords Assamblea of the Dark Territory in his personal dictatorship taking advantage of the flaws in the data of the habitats (who are forced to follow the "rule of the strongest"), when the wall of the Human Empire colapses, Gabriel leads the invation, using PoH and DIL as his Co-Dragons, when the invation don't go so well as he expect, Gabriel decide use more risking strategies causing unnecesary deaths in his own side, believing who the sheer number and experience of his side are the only things who he needs to win going so far to use members of his own army as Demihuman sacrifices to empower DIL and send his melee fighter to cross a abbysm in a rope all of this without care for the lifes of "the uncomplete fluctlights". In top of that, Gabriel go so far to think in the possibilty of destroying the Underworld and killing every IA in it after his victory. Gabriel Miller is epitome the of sociopathy and selfishness in the entire SAO series, becoming the series' biggest Knight of Cerebus, the AdministratorQuinella might be caused the biggest damage to the society of the Human Empire, but no one had caused much death, misery and destruction than Gabriel Miller in the entire Underworld.

When was the Complete Monster trope actually created? The info box states it was in 2013, but the thread dedicated to managing it was all the way back in 2010. Not to mention it was mentioned quite frequently before then.

IndirectActiveTransport

04:01:52 PM Jul 4th 2016edited by IndirectActiveTransport

At least 2009, and even that, I believe, was a second draft...so probably 2008. Complete Monster, when I first came here, was supposed to be villain with no redeeming qualities but Trope Decay became villain the audience hates and then someone put Pure Hate in You Know That Thing Where(now Trope Launch Pad) to cover that but it was merged into complete monster(creating the mess that's accumulated for the past seven years)

They can be if the benevolence is just Pragmatic Villainy (no one wants to work for a guy who treats his henchmen like shit) or as Septimus said if it's the façade of a Villain with Good Publicity. If it's genuine benevolence, then no.

Hello guys. As you can tell, I'm new here. But I've been reading TV Tropes far longer ago than that, so it compensate quite a bit my lack of experience here.

Not that I want to create a fused by talking about him again, but even after actually reading each pages which talked about him before he got cut, I still don't understand why Eobard Thawne wouldn't qualify as a CM.

The arguments In favor of his guts that I got to see were :

The Season 2's trailer

His Pet the Dog moment towards Barry.

For the trailer, it wasn't actually Eobard Thawne, but another character which had pretty much the same voice as him, who wanted to kill Barry in exchange for him going home. Besides, if that was the case, wouldn't it create a big fuss In the first season ? I mean, he wanted to use Barry's speed to go home in the first place, which is why he kept himself from killing him.

Now, the Pet the Dog moment. Taken out-of-context, it's great out-of-character moment : why Eobard Thawne is suddenly being nice to the one he hated (the Season one's final revealed that he had the superhuman will to keep himself from killing him because he need him) for at least over ten years ? It's all explained : not long before he made this decision, he taunted Barry about the fact that he think that he'll never be truly happy, even if he had everything he wanted. That's exactly why he was nice to him : he wanted to prove Barry that even with the favor he did to him, he'll not be happy, which arguably turns the Pet the Dog moment into a Kick the Dog moment.

I've heard that you were going to cut him until his arc is over, but it's not like he was going to come back : how do you bring back to life someone who doesn't exist in the first place ? So, unless there was another argument in favor of Thawne being cut, I suggest to take him back in the list of C Ms.

Hodor2

07:42:00 PM Dec 14th 2015

You should bring this up here, although for what it's worth, the reason why Thawne is disqualified is not either of the things you mention (not sure where you are getting those).

It's because he genuinely cared for Cisco (he also maybe cared for Caitlin and maybe Barry to the extent he separated him from the Flash but that's more arguable) and because he left behind a video clearing Barry's father for altruistic reasons.

Would John Gieger from Speed 2 apply since Howard Payne from Speed does? Or does Gieger not enjoy the carnage to the same level that Payne does and thus, he's seen as having a Freudian Excuse? Plus, what about Fluke from General Hospital or Amy Dunne from Gone Girl?

Also, what example of a CM who is hated to point of Scrappy can you think of?

P.S. The reason I'm afraid of posting at the cleanup thread is because I'm not necessarily contributing to any new examples (how many strangers contribute there anyway?), and I don't know if they accept discussions on parts of the trope itself.

Sorry if this is the wrong page to be discussing this, but I think Reynard from Reynard the Fox should go here. Here is how I suggest it should go: Reynard before the story even starts has shown himself to be a rapist and child abuser. Throughout the story he commits multiple brutal murders, including Chanticleer's wife and eleven of their children. He murders a hare and frames a ram for it. Reynard seems to have no morals and and even accuses his father and nephew, who was trying to help him, of treason to protect himself. And he gets away with it!

...Speaking of which, is it possible for a CM to not be happy about the predicament their nature has brought on them, in some way (the monster can't feel bad about being a monster in the first place), or even have the story show being a Complete Monster is not all it's cracked up to be?

Why isn't Arcade seen as a Complete Monster after his actions in this. Sure he has comedic moments, but so do others who have qualified for this trope. Plus it is played straight with the impact he's had on these children. He's shown no loyalty to anyone. He even tried to kill the one woman who helped him. He has not empathy what so ever and is reviled by everyone. And after this his only regret is that he is worried he reached his peak, and can't top it.

Evil Is Cool or at least one for the Awesome section? I mean, Lockdown is currently a CM, but he does have his awesome moments Not anymore he's not, but my points still stand. And moments for the Funny page can still be taken seriously in-universe.

Also, you hardly get answers in the discussions unless the accompanying page is a hot topic now.

Are you guys sure this and Woobie tropes are only tropes meant to be described by the way the audience feels about them and not what they actually are?

I mean, Ensemble Darkhorses and Scrappies seem to definitely be a matter of how famous or infamous people feel about them, or things like Growing the Beard and Jumping the Shark are a matter of when the audience thinks things got better or worse for the story in question, but these type of tropes... They kind of seem to be a pretty accurate enough description for them to be an actual trope.

Shaoken

02:48:37 AM Jul 29th 2014

It will eventually be a proper trope, but as it stands there is still a lot of bad examples to clean up to get it all to a presentable level.

If Complete Monster is a YMMV trope, then why is it so exclusive and treated so seriously?

Telcontar

06:29:54 AM Dec 3rd 2013

Because "YMMV" doesn't mean "anything goes". I believe there are also plans to make it non-YMMV in the future.

Codafett

04:10:02 PM Dec 3rd 2013edited by 50.13.110.34

Isn't that exactly what it means though? "Your Mileage May Vary" aka "You may not agree with this, but here goes anyway".

Telcontar

01:29:26 AM Dec 4th 2013

No.

Cliché Storm is another YMMV trope, but if a work has only one cliché then that work is simply not an example. If someone listed it as an example, it would be removed. If dozens of people began listing every work they found boring as a Cliché Storm, we might have to define it more strictly and vet all examples.

In the same way, Complete Monster requires certain criteria. They used to be less strictly enforced, but that led to massive misuse and people added characters who contradicted the trope description. This meant it had to become more exclusive and more discussion was needed.

Codafett

04:45:06 PM Dec 4th 2013

Doesn't really prove me wrong. But they should accelerate those plans to make this trope a Non-YMMV.

SeptimusHeap

06:35:23 AM Dec 6th 2013

There is a lot of work still to be done before we can go ahead.

Niria

07:51:01 PM Jan 21st 2014

Was this trope more misused than others? Every trope gets examples that should not have been added. As long as there are No Real Life Examples (and I agree that there should be no real life examples), it doesn't need extraordinary care IMO. I think there is sometimes too much concern here about defaming fictional characters.

SeptimusHeap

12:00:59 AM Jan 22nd 2014

Actually, "defaming fictional characters" is not the issue in the slightest. The issue is people trying to shove bad examples into Complete Monster. That exists even without a Real Life section.

Niria

06:03:46 AM Jan 22nd 2014

It's obviously always a bad thing when a trope is misused. Looking at the discussion, it seemed to me (even though I don't think I ever tried to add an example; I think I've tweaked an example or two to add context or a link or something, but that's all; so it is not about anything I want to add) as if there was much more concern about the misuse of this trope than of misuse of others.

Maybe there's a good reason for that, in that it was being misused a lot more or something. I was just concerned that it could be blown out of proportion with this trope just because it's extreme, as that consideration shouldn't make it more serious as long as there's no Real Life section.

SeptimusHeap

06:14:19 AM Jan 22nd 2014

Well, this trope attracts a lot of interest. That's why we are so strict with it. Other tropes tend to run into manpower problems if you try to handle them the way this trope is handled.

Should the comic book version of the Joker be considered a Complete Monster? I'm pretty sure you have to be consistent to be this trope, and that's the one thing he never does.

Shaoken

04:59:19 AM Aug 26th 2013

The only thing required to be consistent is your lack of redeeming qualities, which is the one thing that has been consistant with the Joker. No matter what the main DC universe Joker is a CM because he's done so many horrific things with no redeeming qualities. Just because in some stories he acts a bit less henious doesn't change the fact that underneath it all he's still just as bad.

I've noticed that this entry keeps getting deleted from most articles, is this a universally agreed decision or vandalism? If it's the former, what's the explanation for that?

Shaoken

10:37:07 PM Jul 26th 2013

It goes through the cleanup thread; before an example can be added to the page it has to get approval first (by consensus on whether or not it meets every criteria identified, not just the big three). Any Zero Context Examples and examples added without going through the approval process get automatically cut, any that go through the process and get passed go on the YMMV page.

We also cut down on potholes because nine times out of ten its all misuse.

Is there any way to add Karen from "the smokers" on here, she's a psychopathic cereal rapest, who claims to do it "not just for use, but all women everywhere", nearly rapes Jeremy (the nicest guy and one of the vary few likable characters in this film), she even has the gull to blame it on "men" and claims she's like Gandhi, it gets to the point were she makes Griffin from red zone Cuba look like a saint

Is a single TRS discussion REALLY grounds for a team of moderators systematically going over every single topic on the entire website and getting rid of any connection between Ghetsis and the Complete Monster trope?

Telcontar

12:23:34 PM Jan 23rd 2013

A number of tropers, after discussion, have concluded Ghetsis doesn't fit and therefore applying Complete Monster to him is misuse. I expect you are free to challenge the conclusion they came to.

Shaoken

10:15:40 PM Feb 26th 2013

Actually he is not; Ghetsis is on the never list, that is the "we've already gone over everything to do with the character multiple times and there is no further avenue of discussion left uncovered so that any future discussion of the character will only go over old ground and serve to clutter the thread."

Simply put, he was brought up, debated, and cut, then remained cut when several different tropers brought him up again. Unless a new game with Ghetsis is released the discussion is well and truly closed, any attempts to re-add him in spite of that will cause mods to get hollered to.

ading

02:27:38 PM Apr 18th 2013

If, however, he can find something that was not brought up in any of the discussions, he may be able to.

AnewMan

02:27:12 PM Apr 20th 2013

Honestly, I think just about everything was brought up in the discussion. The users who were against Ghetsis' inclusion grasped at straws to disqualify him, citing that he "fails at baseline heinousness." Even though every other criteria was hit, and Ghetsis stands out as more evil and despicable than the other Big Bads of Pokémon, even when compared to Cyrus.

I've got several arguments as to why Ghetsis is a valid example of a Complete Monster, but unfortunately I cannot bring it to the discussion because he's been permanately disqualified via the "Never Again" list. -_-

AnewMan

02:27:28 PM Apr 20th 2013edited by 216.99.32.43

[Double Post]

ading

03:15:55 PM May 3rd 2013edited by 216.99.32.44

^ If he fails at baseline heinousness, he doesn't qualify. That's not "grasping at straws", it's the single strongest argument that can be levelled against an example of this trope.

Shaoken

06:55:21 PM May 25th 2013

^^ Just because nobody agreed with your decision doesn't mean they were grasping at straws. Don't be a sore loser.

It's basically used to keep villians from kid's shows from being brought up. In such a hypothetical work an unlikeable bully who enjoys being a dick to the other kids is truly henious if every other character is nice and sympathetic, but when you put them on the same page as torturers, rapists, murderers and other colourful characters there is just no justification for them being anywhere near this trope. Before the cleanup thread really kicked into gear you even saw such characters added to the pages with the justification being "x was making fun of y."

As a guideline if a villian isn't really going above and beyond standard villian fare then they're not really hitting that baseline standard we've set up. That includes trying to kill the hero since that is more or less what the majority of all villians try to do.

I don't see why Brian's family from The Breakfast Club doesn't qualify. They abuse, guilt-trip and humiliate him to get perfect grades to boost their already Jupiter-sized superiority complexes and apparently don't give a fuck that he could've, you know, KILLED HIMSELF. Hell, most of the parents, with the possible exception of Claire's, could qualify. Andy's dad pretty implies he's done worse stuff than taping buttocks together a long, long time ago and that he's grooming Andy to be as evil as him.

Why can't a group of villains in general counts as complete monsters, despite doing a lot of bad things?

Shaoken

10:55:40 PM Dec 20th 2012

Because groups lack Moral Agency, which is one of the qualifiers in being truly henious as per the cleanup threads long, long refinement of the trope. Not only that, but being a Complete Monster means being head and shoulders above the crop in terms of evilness, whereas if a group was counted as a Complete Monster then everyone in the group is roughly as evil as each other, which contradicts the truly henious part. Finally, groups are typically large, and there's no concievable way that every single member of it is Truly Henious for the above reasons, so that's misuse of the trope. If you could prove that each member counted individual as a Complete Monster, then there's no point in labeling the group as one instead of just the members.

Why was "death metal" removed from the music section again, considering when most of the people in those songs did completely FUCKED UP SHIT BEYOND TELLING?

Nithael

07:58:07 AM Oct 7th 2012

If you're talking about the "Death Metal songs with gore in it in general" example, that's because we don't list "in general" or "everybody in X genre" examples. If you think one particular example or several might count, you can go to this thread to discuss them individually.

So, what's the difference between a Jerkass and a Complete Monster? I ask this, because both types are unpleasant and there seems to be a degree of overlap between the two.

sniperfish

01:57:53 PM Jun 30th 2012

Jerkasses are more unpleasant than anything. They're annoying but not entirely life threateningly dangerous, at worst a Jerkass can probably be someone who doesn't care about anyone, and on occasion might cross the Moral Event Horizon.

A Complete Monster on the other hand is someone who is more than unpleasant, they're downright evil. They have already gone far past the Moral Event Horizon, and have no regrets about it. The value of one's life means nothing to them other than a means to reach a end. What they do can mean anything from murder, to rape, to mass genocide.

ading

04:40:19 AM Aug 7th 2012

A Complete Monster is far more than just "unpleasant". They are pure evil with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. A Jerkass is unpleasant but are at the very least on the good guys' side, giving them at least one redeeming quality.

As such the latter page describes in detail why a character is rooted for because they're not actually all that bad, and everything they do is somewhat justified, etc etc... and at the same time, there are paragraphs over this side about how those same characters are irredeemably eeeeevil for all the awfully horrible things they do.

I'm not saying the tropes are 100% mutually exclusive, but the justifications given in Rooting for the Empire tend, where accurate, to disqualify said characters from Complete Monster status... for way too many characters.

Johan is widely considered to be the poster-boy for Complete Monster, but does he really qualify? He never had a chance to be any thing else, and Another Monster shows us that Johan took that second chance Tenma gave him to be a better man. Plus, he had Dissociative Identity Disorder and one of those identities honestly wanted to stop, shown when he gives money to a prostitute so she can start over.

Kevin Khatchadourian, from "We Need to Talk About Kevin" is just about as unremittingly evil as any character I can think of. His mother was always the only one who he showed his true colors to until he was in his mid teens, when he (SPOILER ALERT) killed his father, little sister, and quite a few of his fellow students for no reason. It's never clear why he is the way he is, but he fits this trope to a T, never showing that he is capable of any feeling other than hate. By the end of the film he has successfully ruined the main character's life in the most horrific way imaginable. Kevin has no Freudian Excuse, and the closest he comes to any kind of remorse is, after spending 2 years in prison, admitting that even he doesn't know why he did what he did.

Jordan

08:02:29 PM Mar 1st 2012

From the reviews of the movie I've read, he actually would be a good example- sounds like he's explicitly presented as devoid of any humanity/redeeming qualities.

Congratulations, Camberf, you are the first troper to post an actual example of a Complete Monster in the Discussion page.

Now I know not many people like the movie Delgo, but I do and Sedesa, the big bad, certainly qualifies. First she doesn't fallow orders to strike peace and instead has her armies attack the other village. Her only "Excuse" was saying that there speeches was superior because they can fly. Then she poisons her sister in law the queen and attempts to do the same to the king, but she gets caught and has her wings removed and sent into exile. While there she only gets worse, She gains the trust of the tribes that live out there and then kills the treble leaders to gain control of there armies. Then using help of a fellow general she frames another general for treason and then frames Delgo for kidnapping the princess, when she was the real culprit. She try to cut off the Princess wings and almost dethrones her brother and I can't remember if she killed him. But during the final battle the floor of the castle starts to collapse and she falls through. Perhaps she should have followed orders.

Why must a complete monster be completely devoid of altruistic qualities? Altruism can be horrific provided it is sufficiently twisted. Lets say a Yandere torturing someone to death cause they accidentally bumped into there crush and didn't immediately apologize. This action of course is to preventing that person from preforming another offense and to make them pay for the one they committed. Altruism doesn't say who the loyalty is to, or how it is acted upon.

Also why must it be played with revolution, hate, and or fear at all times? Some people might not realize the person they are dealing with is a complete monster at first.

They must be played with revultion, hate and/or fear at all times when their nature is own. If the character doesn't realise it's a CM then they don't, but if the characters don't act in such a way when revealed that would indicate the character isn't a Complete Monster by the standards of the story.

MrDeath

07:20:51 AM Feb 29th 2012

Lets say a Yandere torturing someone to death cause they accidentally bumped into there crush and didn't immediately apologize. This action of course is to preventing that person from preforming another offense and to make them pay for the one they committed.

...How does that in any way, shape, or form fit any definition of "altruism"? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

This is just an Idea for an entry. Mesogog from Power Ranger Dino Thunder should be a qualifier. Despite having the sympathetic Anton Merser, Mesogog is the evil alter ego who is determined to separate from Anton. Now for his atrociousness: He lied to Trent (White Ranger) when he made the trade for the Dino Gems when he said he would give Anton (Who he had separated from) back then he tries to kill them. To power his machine he takes the power from his right hand man Elsa when she points out he needed a power source to give it a boost to start it. He Mind Rapes his henchman when they fall behind or fail. And the fact his master plan is to bring about a new Dino age. If you think about it that would mean many people would louse their lives. Through all of the power ranger series Mesogog is played seriously at times. So being destroyed by all the power in the Dino Gems was vary amusing.

I'm wondering why Syndrome from the Incredibles isn't listed on the CM page? He seems like a pretty good example of one. Let's see.
"The character is truly heinous by the standards of the story, which makes no attempt to present the character in any positive way." Check. He has a Freudian Excuse, but that isn't enough to excuse his crimes.

"The character's terribleness is played seriously at all times, evoking fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story." Check. Syndrome's actions are not Playedfor Laughs and even one of his henchmen is shocked by his villainy.

"They are completely devoid of altruistic qualities. They show no regret for their crimes." Check. The only reason Syndrome wants to be a superhero is satisfy his own ego and he never shows regret for his evil acts.

Shaoken

09:32:50 PM Dec 27th 2011

Take it to the forums, special efforts section. You can find a link in several CM source files.

So... Doesn't Bad Girl count? I mean, No attempt to portray her actions positivly? Check. Evil character (In this case, Travis) Disgusted by her actions? Check. No regret? Well, here's a quote: "It's just a job, the daily grind." So, yeah, I think she counts.

Stealthy

11:26:52 PM Dec 2nd 2011

If evil is 'just a job' for a character, they're a Punch Clock Villain. The two tropes do not overlap.

AquaRegia

04:20:05 AM Dec 5th 2011

I shot this one down earlier, and I'm not willing to budge here. Bad Girl's evil acts are almost completely implied (unless you count batting cloned gimps as a Moral Event Horizon sufficient enough for her to qualify, and that's too silly). Implication "can" potentially be used to put a character into this trope, but that's largely because the implication is tied to a something that really brings it all home, like actions, the results of those actions, etc. The thing about implication is that this trope is tied not only to its requirements, but to more esoteric values; this is the reason why the average Generic Doomsday Villain rarely, if ever, deserves its place on this page. Sure, they might want to destroy the world, but there needs to be more than that. There needs to be something that really relates this action to the viewer (or the player or the whatever) in a way that simultaneously shocks and appalls them and really convinces them that guy is absolutely horrible

Bad Girl, as a character, is completely detached from any of this. There's nothing about her that genuinely drives home the point that she's a Complete Monster. She's insane and evil and her dialogue exists to enforce this, but we don't see anything, be it actions or results, that really consolidates any of that in one, loathsome package. That just does not make a solid entry for this trope and serves as nothing but a poor example from which characters who hardly qualify get their entry pass.

Even if you rely on that implication to place her here, she's pretty much a parody of this trope: She's an exaggerated example who crosses every line twice up to and including, may I inculcate this, beating down cloned gimps for fun and sport. Travis's disgust towards her is more or less an intentionally half-hearted invocation of Even Evil Has Standards out of a sense of contextual obligation; to enforce this comedic exaggeration rather than to establish that she really is bad news. In the end, she might be creepy and/or disturbing, but Bad Girl isn't this; she doesn't have the weight to be a Complete Monster, and her portrayal really makes no attempt to give her said weight.

EDIT: Forget it, misread your post. However, I'd suggest you to do that kind of objections in the forums.

WhiteBear

03:47:19 PM Dec 12th 2011edited by WhiteBear

"A character doesn't have to be sympathic or have redeeming moral qualities to be realistic."

Real Life doesn't have the luxury of giving people multiple points-of-view to understand the nature of, say, asshole-ish classmates or nerve-grinding co-workers in the same way a work of fiction can. In a TV show, you can learn why an antagonist acts the way they do or see some redeeming qualities in them from A Day In The Lime Light episode. In real life, you have no way of getting into the minds of everyone who has ever been slightly unpleasant to you.

doomsday524

10:08:11 PM Jan 14th 2012edited by doomsday524

Yeah, maybe, but there are people who are genuinely vicious and irredeemable too. That's a given. I think having at least one enhances a work.
The sentence saying it's unrealistic or for some reason simplistic for a work to have this? Let's see, Hitler, Stalin, etc, and most probably know from our lives some people that failed empathy 101.

ading

05:25:00 AM Feb 14th 2013

Do you know why they did what they did? If not, then you can't really say whether they could be redeemed.

Could a character who is a completely irredemable villain whose actions are played seriously and commits atrocities truly horrific by the story's standards BUT is generally loved OOCly because Evil Is Cool be considered a Complete Monster?

Jordan

10:11:52 PM Nov 18th 2011

What does OO Cly mean? I'm guessing you mean "by the audience", in which case, I guess so. I mean like the Joker is a pretty popular character and tends to be considered one of the better examples of a complete monster.

I do think though that it's more usual for a complete monster to be a character loathed both in-series and by the audience.

Stealthy

02:04:52 AM Nov 19th 2011edited by Stealthy

It's a Play By Post RP term meaning 'out of character', so...yeah. Alright, that's good~

Good point. In Crocker's back story, he actually cared about his fairies.

ading

04:45:31 AM Aug 7th 2012edited by ading

Besides, Crocker's a Harmless Villain who can't accomplish anything without someone else's help. However, although Vicky doesn't qualify, she is often treated like one. In one episode, she was even explicitly stated to be the most evil person in the universe.

I know we've decided not to have real-life examples, but can we have real-life quotes on the quote section?

Carl Panzram:

"In my lifetime I have murdered 21 human beings, I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, arsons and last but not least I have committed sodomy [read: rape] on more than 1,000 male human beings. For all these things I am not in the least bit sorry."

"I wish all mankind had one neck so I could choke it!"

Last words: "Hurry up, you Hoosier bastard, I could kill ten men while you're fooling about!"

I don't think anyone is going to read this far down, but this is about rule number one.

Over in the Mass Effect discussion we've had a big arguement and discussion about what constitute off-screen. The problem is that most of our examples happen off-camera. The compromise on the matter came down to how much of the after-effects were shown; if we were simply told this but not given any proof, it counted as off-screen. If we walk through the facility where horrible experiments were preformed, saw recordings of them talking about what they were doing, saw the effects it had on their victims etc. that counted enough for the trope.

Anyway, how much leeway is there on the definition of "off-screen" out of interest?

ading

05:54:13 AM Oct 23rd 2011

I never really thought about it but I agree too. Perhaps a more reasonable criterion would be "if it's not clear whether or not they actually committed the horrible act we have been told they commit, then they fail to qualify."

Jordan

01:51:49 PM Oct 24th 2011

I agree too. That criterion is likely referring to Offstage Villainy. Villainy that is directly off-camera is still clearly going on.

ading

02:11:14 PM Oct 24th 2011

^ Offstage Villainy is about the villain's actions not being seen by the hero. What is being proposed is that only if there is no proof that the villain's actions were actually committed does it disqualify them-innocent until proven guilty.

Shaoken

05:00:39 PM Oct 24th 2011

Pretty much what ading is saying. If the only evidence we hear (no pun intended) is another character saying this happened, it fits the "no offscreen villiany" rule. If you're told about these crimes, and then later events happen which refect the same crimes, then it counts as tying the two events together.

For example you're told about all the experiments a scientist would do on his own staff, and then later you come across one of his labs with the staff there experimented on, and when you confront the guy the person who told you about what happens confirms his identity. That sort of thing, where there is a clear link between what oyu see and what you hear.

I guess a counter-example of what wouldn't count is if you're told a guy makes a sport out of torturing children, but at no point in the game do you see him torturing anyone or targetting children.

ading

04:54:03 AM Nov 4th 2011

What happened to brony's post?

Shaoken

12:00:24 AM Nov 14th 2011

Probably got deleted due to Brony continuing to push on the Discord isse.

The Western Animation subpage's discussion link leads to the Western Animation general discussion page instead of the trope-specific discussion page it should lead to. Can anyone fix it, or at least tell us why?

Gonna remove mention of my cleanups on the subpages, since the TRS thread is gone anyway. Real Life this year's been a rollercoaster, hence my relatively sporadic troping and inability to do a full cleanup as I intended; sorry. Any mentions on locked subpages, should any be left, should be removed by those with the clearance to do so.

I added the following to the Disney discussion page, but I should probably add it here too:
—-
Do Jafar and Maleficent really belong on the list? Even if they are lacking in redeeming qualities, their villainy seems to be taken a little more lightly than that of other examples. I think applying the Complete Monster label to Jafar and Maleficent diminishes the value of applying it to Frollo and Lotso.

Paireon

10:57:28 PM Sep 28th 2011edited by Paireon

*Facepalm* Again with Maleficent? I'll try to see what I can do there (though the Disney subpage is probably still locked). I argued long ago that she doesn't quite belong there.

Not sure if Ratigan would count. I mean, Padraic is sometimes played out for comedy.

ading

05:11:27 PM Oct 23rd 2011

Ratigan is mostly played for laughs, and most of his acts don't seem to be CM-level (and before someone mentions it, we don't actually know that he drowned widows and orphans. The only evidence we have is his minions mentioning it. Innocent until proven guilty.)

But he does turn around. He joins the party, the girl genuinely loves him, and in-so much as he can, he loves her back. A CM has no redeeming traits, not even minor ones.

Paireon

10:54:16 PM Sep 28th 2011edited by Paireon

I agree with Ambar on this one. That he remains a deeply unpleasant character even after his Heel–Face Turn is pretty realistic IMO- switching camps in a war is relatively easy, actually changing who you are take a lot more time and effort, and even then you'll always have some traits of who you were originally (barring amnesia or any of a plethora of only-true-in-Hollywood stuff). It'll probably take years for sucha character to realize the full import of his previous villainy, and possibly even longer for him to feel remorse, if ever.

Zundapp is sometimes used for humor, but this doesn't undermine his evilness.

Unlike Axlerod, Zundapp's motive is revenge for being considered a lemon.

Zundapp shows zero remorse for his actions.

No attempt is made to redeem Zundapp.

ading

05:43:53 PM Aug 14th 2011

Attempting to commit murder doesn't count, they have to actually commit the crime.

Also, there may be no attempt to redeem Zundapp or Axlerod, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to visualize.

GrendelGrendelGrendel

05:06:45 PM Aug 17th 2011

This trope seems to stretch to accomodate pretty much any unsympathetic villain someone feels like adding. I kind of question whether it's a worthwhile category at all.

The best way I can sum up my subjective understanding of the original trope is: a villain whom the audience despise, and are happy and satisfied to see die. That excludes all "cool", amusing or sympathetic villains like Darth Vader or the Joker, characters the audience like to watch because they find their villainy entertaining (rather than sickening), and it also excludes most one-dimensional or poorly-written villains since the audience isn't invested enough in them to care.

As things are, I think the only thing to be done is either to scrap the trope, or else to redefine the requisites to be wholly objective, which might be limiting enough to finish it off anyway.

Paireon

07:51:58 PM Aug 23rd 2011edited by Paireon

Actually that's the old, old definition of the trope. The new one is quite bit tighter, with its criteria list. And you'll note that several "entertaining" villains (The Joker for example) ARE still included despite their fandom because their entertainment value simply isn't enough to mask how much of a monster they are (most people think the Joker in The Dark Knight was the best thing in the movie, but nobody except the most stupidly rabid fans will deny that his actions were completely beyond the pale).

As for Cars 2 villains... well, I'm not familiar enough to judge; just keep in mind that some of the criteria are actually not that easy to weigh.

BowsertheSecond

08:01:01 AM Aug 27th 2011edited by BowsertheSecond

Alright then, here's a more in-depth look at the criteria for Axlerod:

Now Miles Axlerod is a Non-Action Big Bad, but he’s also a Chess Master, having plotted the entire operation from the start. When Lightning McQueen announces that he will be using Allinol in the final race, Axlerod organises for Lightning to be killed, which would have succeeded only if Sarge hadn’t switched out the fuel. His backup plan involved strapping a bomb to Mater and detonating it when Lightning was close enough, killing him, Mater and any numerous others close enough to it.

Axlerod holds a suave, charming façade in public to hide is cold, scheming ways. The difference is clear during his speech in Italy at the Lemon meeting. He boasts about how the racers are having their engines blown out by the Allinol to discredit alternative fuel and that he and his Lemon followers will become rich and powerful, but when speaking to the press after the race, he sorrowfully admits that Allinol will not be used for the final race.

Axlerod’s motivation appears to be fuelled by greed, wanting to become the richest car in the world. This appears to eclipse the other motive of being considered a Lemon, as it is unclear if Axlerod has always been one, or if he was converted to one as part of his scheme.

Axlerod shows no empathy for his actions, even going as far as to thank Lightning for choosing to use Allinol and how he hoped that Lightning could prove that others were wrong about it being dangerous, all the while knowing that he had secretly organised Lightning to be assassinated.

Axlerod is incarcerated at the end of the film, and no form of redemption is attempted.

Now for Zundapp:

Zundapp is the main physical threat present in the film, being the Dragon-in-Chief to Axlerod. Zundapp callously tortures and kills Rod Redline in Japan and is seemingly unfazed at this, so this is largely routine for him. Later in the London race, Zundapp is about to detonate the bomb attached to Mater, knowing full well about all the other characters that would be caught in the blast radius.

Zundapp is considered a serious threat by Finn and Holley. As for the humor, Zundapp has small bouts of silliness, but these moments don’t undermine his evilness.

Zundapp has a slightly stronger Freudian Excuse than Axlerod, wanting revenge for being considered a Lemon. This does not however make up for his actions.

As mentioned above, Zundapp is unfazed by his actions throughout the film.

Like Axlerod, Zundapp is incarcerated and is not given any chances at redemption.

MrGriffin

09:49:21 AM Sep 1st 2011edited by MrGriffin

I got a question: Does Lottie from Nick Cave's "Curse of Millhaven" and the protagonist of the Tiger Lillies' "Terrible" count as Complete Monsters?

P.S. Forgive me my mistake. I accidentally replied to this topic, instead of creating new one.

Paireon

10:45:59 PM Sep 28th 2011

No prob, we all make mistakes. As for your question, well, what did these characters do? I'm not familiar with these songs (same thing for other tropers I suspect), so recounting the actions which may qualify them would be helpful.

MrGriffin

01:26:55 PM Oct 15th 2011

Lottie is a 15 year old serial killer who terrorised her town because "all God's children got to die". When she got captured, her only remorse was that she have no possibility to hurt anyone anymore.

about the first rule for this trope, does a character have to succeed in horrible actions? Steele from Balto deserves to be called a Complete Monster yet he only ever tried to kill anyone.

ading

05:44:52 PM Aug 14th 2011

Yes. If this is the case then delete Steele. Only problem is the Western Animation page is locked.

lightning37

11:43:53 AM Aug 16th 2011

I haven't seen that movie, however what the page says is that he refused to let the dogs deliver things to the village and left the kids doomed, so does that indicate anything?

Paireon

07:38:57 PM Aug 23rd 2011

If ultimately the others managed to deliver the goods in time and nobody was hurt too badly, then he wouldn't fit, since one of the criterias is your actions actually causing enough damage to be considered irredeemable. There would have to be at least one dead or crippled for life kid in this situation for him to count on this criteria.

RLNice

04:27:05 PM Dec 7th 2012

This doesn't make sense to me, since regardless of whether a character succeeds or not, the malice in their actions is the same.

In theory, Your Mileage May Vary on nearly all tropes. Who says that a Happy Ending is happy, for example? In practice, what we mean by a significant judgment call is exactly the duck test outlined above- an item falls under YMMV if people often disagree about it. Either we can figure this out from the definition, or a huge natter infestation wherever the item is mentioned clues us in. Either way, it gets stamped with the "subjective" stamp and relegated to YMMV subpages, where the varying of mileage and resulting natter will not get in the way of the objective tropes.

This is a question that's just bugging me - A complete monster shows no regret over heinous acts.

Regretting a heinous act in the sense that they regret that it wasn't more heinous (or rather that they could have easily made it more heinous - for example, accidentally destroying an entire city and almost all its people, and they regret that it wasn't on purpose) would still qualify for that, right?

DoktorvonEurotrash

04:28:47 AM Jun 21st 2011

No, the possibility you mentioned is not what that requirement is about at all.

Okay, if Coach Keller wasn't this, he was definitely one of, if not the biggest recurring Jerkass on the show (he might be Played for Laughs, Dan just did a terrible job with him). That said, here are two characters from Drake & Josh that I feel should be brought up:

The criminals from The Movie. Replacing Josh's G.O., unfairly making money, and (kidnapping and) trying to drown Drake and Josh?! Plus they were two of the most wanted guys in the US (I haven't seen that movie in some time, though, but that's what I recall).

Dr. Favisham from "My Dinner with Bobo". He tried to cook and eat a monkey, locked Drake and Josh in a closet, and even escaped arrest (though that's typical in Schneider-verse).

Officer Gilbert from the Christmas movie fails, though, because he has a Freudian Excuse and also fails the last criteria. Would either of the two I mentioned fit, though?

ading

06:02:13 AM Jun 24th 2011

I don't know about The Movie, but Dr. Favisham doesn't actually succeed in any onstage villainy, so no.

lightning37

03:14:27 PM Jun 29th 2011

Well, I haven't seen Go Hollywood in years, but since noone has objected to that, I added the criminals already. If anyone has reason for them to be removed, do mention.

According to the Playing With page, a Subverted Complete Monster is a character purposely doing heinous and terrible acts to achieve a Zero Percent Approval Gambit...

From the page itself : "Emperor Evulz is pulling off a Zero Percent Approval Gambit: he makes it seem like he's an irredeemable monster, so heroes and villains alike will unite, leading to a better world."

I know an example that does this.

Could it still be added to this page?

I'd like to add it to Anime and Manga, the character is from the series Code Geass. It's Lelouch towards the end of the series.

Slicer37

09:02:03 AM Jun 5th 2011edited by ading

No. I know what you are talking about, but if a character subverts a troupe, you shouldn't put him on unless there is a section for it, which there isn't.

If a villain shows the typical Complete Monster traits yet they have an adequate Freudian Excuse, where do they fit in?For example,say Emperor Evulz is a monstrous psychopath who slaughters innocents For the Evulz because the group that raised him horrifically tortured him-to the point you'd expect someone to become as monstrous as Emperor Evulz.If all other specifications for this trope are fit,except for an inadequate Freudian Excuse,what trope do they belong to?

I don't think a Freudian Excuse is enough to excuse anyone from being really, really evil though. If Emperor Evulz in this instance were to, say, pull a Kefka and destroy the world for the fun of it, that would be pushing towards the Moral Event Horizon.

I can understand the YMMV stance, but sometimes there are clear cut examples (the dresden files is chock full of them, including the guys who caused the rwanda and cambodia genocides for shits and giggles)

Anaheyla

01:20:24 PM May 20th 2011

Clear cut or not, there's always going to be someone who argues that a character who is obviously a Complete Monster isn't. Sad but true.

SeraphimSwordmaster

03:47:39 PM May 20th 2011

If this trope is going to be YMMV, then I think we need to find some kind of "watered down" version of this trope.

This might be a bit much, but does anyone think Coach Keller from Zoey 101 should be added? He forced his students to run lots of laps even when he knew they were exhausted (requirement 4), and if they came back from disc golf, he threatened to make them run the same amount of laps they would have run had they not changed electives. He also made Chase and Michael do things like take a beating from a child (I think), and he forced Zoey to join the wrestling team for the sole purpose of putting her in the tournament, making boys forfeit against her and then take her out so another guy would get in the final match without being tired out. (She did get to play in that match, but still.) Not surprisingly, Zoey was appalled by this (requirement 2). He doesn't have any excuse for this that I know of (requirement 3). Am I missing a time when he was good? "But it's Dan Schneider world, everything is Played for Laughs!" Not everything. Some things that happen in his shows areutterly shocking (iSell Penny Tees, anyone?). While some of you might see him as Comedic Sociopathy, I don't. What do you guys think?

WhiteBear

09:40:55 PM May 16th 2011

Eh...sounds more like a Sadist Teacher or a Jerkass to me. See above posting: Jerkass /=/ Complete Monster.

ading

09:20:19 AM Jun 16th 2011

Doesn't really sound monstrous to me.

Nothingtoseehere

10:35:36 AM Nov 5th 2011

Yeah, definitively sounds more like Sadist Teacher.

doomsday524

09:46:44 PM Jan 14th 2012

I'd hate to have someone like that for a teacher, but he doesn't belong up there with mass murderers.

Why do some people think being a Jerkass automatically means you're a Complete Monster? Is it really fair to put Jerkasses who Kick the Dog on the same page as villains who Mind Rape children, attempt to enact genocide, or basically do anything that goes beyond what a schoolyard bully couldn't even be capable of thinking?

I was going to suggest Shan-Yu from Disney's "Mulan," but I was stumped over the "adequate justification" thing. He's a total beast, to be sure, and he was apparently up to his villains' antics before the events of the movie (note how everyone knows who he is and is appropriately concerned when his name is mentioned!) He said he was invading China because the building of the wall "challenged his strength."

Me, I don't think that's really justification, but rather just a flimsy excuse for him to invade and pillage what he finds inside the wall.

Other than that, he's irredeemably evil: look what he did to the village, even smiling when he said they should "return" a stolen doll to its owner; the classic "How many men does it take to deliver a message?" line (one!); and the rest of his shenanigans.

What say you, tropers?

71.80.226.45

10:33:42 PM Mar 8th 2011

I think many don't want to give him a complete monster label because the conflict in the movie is based on the Xiongnu Conflict with China( from what I heard it was much greyer on each side).It is inexcusable that he burned down civilian villages but his reason for invading could be deeper than just challenging the emperor.There was good reasons why the Xiongnu would despise the Chinese but it doesn't justify Shan-yu's actions.I have a feeling the reason why he's merciless because he has a long hatred for the Chinese and therefore he sees know no need to show grace to even civilians.The thing is because they don't exist as a ethnic group anymore they are easier to demonize and give a historical villian upgrade.The other thing is during the conflicts with the Xiongnu, the Chinese committed war crimes against Xiognu villages as well and even stirred up trouble between tribes to get them from rising up against the Chinese.One last thing that could make a good reason why Shan-yu climbed the wall,from what I heard the wall cut through the land which historically northern Xiongnu tribes were said roam in.I not justifying his evil actions but I believe there were more behind those words when he said the wall challenged his strength.

TropeADope

01:41:19 AM Mar 9th 2011

Yeah, quite probably more than meets the eye; I was going by what they showed in the movie. Maybe the Great Wall was his own Berserk Button or something. I thought it just gave him a weak pretense to invade something else, as if he needed one anyway.

But whatever is, is. We can always add him later if someone changes their minds. Thankyouverymuch. (Yes, I speak Elvis.)

I'm surprised no one has put Peter Griffin and Louis Griffin on the complete monster list.They have done too many atrocities to be excused as heroes or even anti-heroes.Man,even Homer isn't this bad and Marge is still a pillar of morals.

Komodin

10:13:17 AM Feb 25th 2011

They still have moments where they're not complete tools. Therefore, they're not complete monsters.

neoYTPism

10:17:18 PM Feb 25th 2011

That and they're played primarily for laughs, (contradicts part 2) Peter is given the excuse of being too stupid to know better, (contradicts part 3) and they are occasionally portrayed as having good in them. (Contradicts part 4.)

Granted, I don't watch much Family Guy, but I don't think such a show would have a genuine CM in it.

I've noticed that you have removed this trope from works pages. If that is the case, you should do away with this trope altogether. If it can't be featured on a works page or character page attached to it, its existence is pointless.

SomeNewGuy

08:04:59 PM Feb 18th 2011

Its a YMMV trope, so it's not pointless, its just supposed to go on the work's YMMV pages only.

Kira1980

06:51:10 PM Feb 19th 2011

Why?

KSonik

04:24:27 AM Feb 20th 2011

Because it is subjective

Kira1987

12:01:52 AM Feb 21st 2011

Name one trope that is not subjective.

Komodin

12:09:13 AM Feb 21st 2011

Why?

It's extremely subjective in that different people have different ideas on what constitutes a "complete monster", and it tends to bring an excessive amount of natter to whatever page they're on.

nuclearneo577

12:28:30 AM Feb 21st 2011

But if someone can contest an example here, its not an example. We need to clean it.

We wouldn't be disputing this if it was about real-life rapists and serial killers with no Freudian Excuses.

KSonik

11:04:30 AM May 28th 2011

any villain who is significantly pretty. Wait, who actually debate that good looking people cannot be CM material? Also one of the requirements of being a Complete Monster is that they must be completely devoid of altruistic qualities, so it certainly makes sense that Well Intentioned Extremists can never be Complete Monster.

SeraphimSwordmaster

08:21:57 AM Jun 5th 2011

You see, I subscribe to the opinion that if a WEI goes too far in their pursuit of what they deem their "well-intentioned" goal that they qualify. Prince Weiss from Arc Rise Fantasia, for example. He manipulates his half-brother(s), orchestrates a grand scheme to deprive an enemy country of its power source so that his can use it, invades said country without a formal declaration of war so that he can kill its religious leader personally... The game tries to justify this by saying that he's a WEI and this is serving some higher goal, but it doesn't really change the fact that a lot of people are dead, and many more are left without the aforementioned power because of him. The fact that his WEI goal is insinuated to be "get rid of the gods... so (he) can take over instead" also factors in. Not very altruistic, is it? Yet, like I said, the game tries to put this in a positive light. I personally don't buy it. I believe that a WEI has to have some kind of moral compass or some personal rules that they won't break to avoid Complete Monsterdom. Weiss, on this particular hand, is very much a villainous unfettered.

As for the "significantly pretty" point, well, okay. I admit that part of that might just be me ranting and I apologise for it. Still, there are characters like Sephiroth whom some will legitimately, completely ignore the wicked acts of and focus entirely on how bishie he is. Then there's Hojo from the same game; an extremely abusive father (as in: never let the mother of his son hold the baby before sending him off to be raised as a Super Soldier) with no redeeming features, who does everything For Science! / For the Evulz. Yet, when I tried adding CM to his sheet (in the days before it was YMMV)... I think it took twenty-two minutes for someone to come along and delete it with a reason like, "Hojo's not a monster". And against all logic, Evil Is Sexy has once-upon a time applied to him as well, despite being a Gonk. Bit of a pattern, methinks. And If he's not a monster, then why does he tick all five boxes of the trope?

For one that bugs me even more; the Big Bad of Berserk. Sacrifices everyone who risked their life to save him to attain ultimate power? Check. Restrains The Hero's girlfriend and rapes her into a state of insanity? Check. Said rape going on to corrupt their unborn child so that it enters the world warped and malformed? Check... We could be here all day. Yet some still try to rescue the guy from Complete Monsterdom. To quote his character page; "A handful of fans like to dismiss his Moral Event Horizon during the Eclipse. Some fans go further by claiming that Casca ENJOYED being raped."

I really don't agree that such evil characters can be spared from being called monsters.

ading

04:41:31 PM Jun 27th 2011edited by ading

^^^ There are plenty of people who believe that NOONE in Real Life is this trope. That includes serial killers and rapists without Freudian Excuses.

Secondly, just because the "evil" element of the trope can be made objective, that does not mean every other element is.

I think after you've crossed the Moral Event Horizon, the Freudian excuse is no longer adequate. You're going to kick me for saying this, but I don't think Hitler was a complete monster. He was under the delusion of doing something good for the world. Fritzl is a definite case as all he cared about was serving his despicable urges at the cost of those in his care.

I still hate the fact that no-one in Real Life is considered a Complete Monster,despite exhibiting the qualifications.Doesn't Pol Pot count for the miserable existence he caused his people?Doesn't Stalin count for the murder of tens of millions simply because they were an interference,not to mention his Lack of Empathy in the later days.Doesn't Caligula count for being utterly depraved?I swear,there are some people in history that have done things that other monsters in fiction have done,and with similar lack of a viable Freudian Excuse

MagBas

06:57:55 PM Feb 4th 2011edited by MagBas

Based in discussions i read this is partially because is impossible determine that someone in Real Life have no good qualities and partially because the tropers Jumped Off The Slippery Slope.

Fighteer

07:36:21 AM Feb 5th 2011

What Mag Bas said, plus the fact that it is impossible to keep people from going crazy on the Real Life section of this article once it's been started. We don't give a flying flip about Real Life examples.

CaptHayfever

07:02:20 PM Feb 10th 2011edited by CaptHayfever

Because some political wingnut will post Obama ("health care = socialism!"). Then in retaliation, some opposite-side wingnut will post Bush ("warmonger"). Then somebody will post Clinton ("adulterous perjurer"). Then someone else will post Reagan ("the devil"). Then FDR ("New Deal = socialism!"). Then Nixon ("was totally a crook"). Then JFK ("started Vietnam"). Then Jackson ("Trail of Tears")... Next thing you know, every US President except maybe Lincoln ("suspended habeas corpus") & Teddy ('cause we're all just too scared to call him one) is on the list.

We aren't saying that no one in real life is considered a Complete Monster (for example, we do all seem to agree on Hitler & Stalin), just that having a Real Life section on this article will turn into (& has in the past turned into) a never-ending mudslinging based on Minor Injury Overreaction.

ading

05:10:03 AM Feb 14th 2011edited by ading

I don't think we'll get every US president, but we will get (in reverse chronological order):

Actually I am not too sure the Comedian is a Complete Monster. He is probably a case of Even Evil Has Standards. But he is a horribly cruel person.

Still, your argument doesn't make any sense Kahran.

ading

02:16:30 PM Jul 28th 2011

So basically, you hate this trope because you have redefined it to what you want it to be, and then criticized the real trope because of your imaginary trope? (Well, not imaginary, but not Complete Monster. More like Generic Doomsday Villain.)

It seems to me that some of the requirements apply to the vast majority of fictional villains, or at least ones I've read about or watched, so I'm not sure how it's not true that almost EVERY villain is a Complete Monster with villains who aren't this trope being rare.

'The character must personally engage in a series of truly horrendous acts, and the story makes no attempt to gloss these over or present them in a positive light. Acts concealed behind a Villainy Discretion Shot or by a distant Mook don't count. The Complete Monster usually starts at the Moral Event Horizon and keeps on running, though nothing excludes them becoming one through Character Development.'

What qualifies as "truly horrendous"? If murder is truly horrendous regardless of weather or not it's an especially painful murder, then almost every villain fits this since almost every villain wants to murder the good guys and that's the primary thing that makes them a villain.

'The character's terribleness must be played seriously at all times, evoking fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story. If there are other villains around who aren't this trope, they are afraid of/dislike this person, too — Even Evil Has Standards, after all (and in particularly disturbing stories with particularly evil villains, even lesser Complete Monsters may fear such a character). If they're Played For Laughs, the character is just Evilly Affable, at best, but can still be one if done right. If the character is not taken seriously at all, they fail to qualify.

(emphasis mine) "If they're Played For Laughs, the character is just Evilly Affable, at best, but can still be one if done right" seems to contradict "The character's terribleness must be played seriously at all times", and the "If they're Played For Laughs, the character is just Evilly Affable" contradicts "but can still be one if done right". And it's not clear what "at best" means. Also, this seems like another one that just about any non-comedic villain could fit. If you're one of the good guys and the villain is trying to kill you, then of course you're going to be afraid of them. Anyone would be afraid of someone who wanted to kill them.

'There is no adequate justification or Freudian Excuse to balance out the misdeeds.'

There are stories about characters who tragically become evil like Doctor Horribles Sing A Long Blog and perhaps Othelo, but in most stories, we don't learn the villain's excuse other then wanting money or power.

'The character must show no regret or remorse for their actions, however terrible. It's better if they obviously enjoy it, but complete lack of emotion or caring will suffice.'

Yet another one that's true of most villains.

'Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption without being considered a Karma Houdini. The only way the story could come to anything resembling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed. A Heel Face Turn is out of the question, and nobody would believe it if it happened. There can be no Redemption Equals Death for this character, and no Fate Worse Than Death is too extreme.'

The "no chance of redemption" part is also true of most villains, though not so much the "no fate worse than death is too extreme" part.

Fighteer

12:55:25 PM Oct 25th 2010

Why is this getting crossposted in the Discussion thread? Just provide a link to the forums!

Paireon

07:27:35 PM Oct 26th 2010

What Fighteer said. The Trope Repair thread is there for a reason, people.

MagBas

03:09:01 PM Jan 14th 2011

Looks that the thread expired.

ading

03:53:11 AM Mar 11th 2011edited by ading

I think you're misunderstanding the criteria.

1. It's not about wanting to do horrendous acts, you have to actually do them.
2. It's not just the good guys that have to fear/hate/revile them, it's also the other villains (if there are any, that is.)
3. agreed.
4. agreed.
5. This is inherently subjective, but really? most villains have no chance of redemption? Also, you seem to be ignoring the "The only way the story could come to anything resemling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed." part.

OK, someone needs to do it, so I may as well bite the bullet. I'm planning on a large-scale cleanup of the trope's subpages during this coming week. Natter and other extraneous text will be excised, examples with insufficient explanations will be expanded, and those not quite fitting will be pruned. I love this trope, but it's become utterly bloated like one of those 100-pound babies you see on Maury Povich and Jerry Springer.

Anyone willing to discuss this is welcome; I'll post this in the forums.

Fighteer

06:13:01 AM Oct 23rd 2010

Good luck with that. I'm serious; CM has one of the highest burnout rates of page minders of any trope on the wiki.

Paireon

09:56:15 PM Oct 24th 2010

Yeah, I know. Thanks. Just started a Trope Repair Shop topic if you want to give any input.

Also, it says in the Disney section that Shan Yu has the biggest body count of any Disney villain. Are they sure about this? I thought that title would belong to Frollo, who threatened to burn down all of Paris, and made considerable progress towards that goal before he was stopped. Sure, Shan Yu burned down whole communities, but they seemed to be rural ones without as high a population density as the city Frollo burned down a significant chunk of.

Paireon

09:58:41 AM Oct 8th 2010

Well, Ancient China had a pretty high population, and if memory serves, the capital was much further south than Beijing, meaning that Shan Yu must have cut a very large swathe of the countryside to get anywhere near it. Meanwhile, late medieval Paris had about 100 000 inhabitants, tops, so Frollo having a lower body count makes sense to me.

Subjective? What's so subjective about this trope? Complete Monsters are horrifically cruel villains with absolutely no regret with what they did. This is about as subjective as the Magnificent Bastard trope.

lrrose

09:39:16 PM Sep 17th 2010edited by lrrose

It seems like they've just given up on cleaning up this article. There are some villains who are portrayed as being irredeemably evil and are acknowledged as such. Suikoden II's Luca Blight is a good example. This reeks of laziness.

neoYTPism

11:24:38 AM Sep 19th 2010

Well, seeing as how morality is TECHNICALLY subjective, as is the notion of whether or not they have a sufficient excuse for their evil deeds, I guess that puts this trope into arguably subjective territory.

70.134.66.117

05:49:08 PM Sep 28th 2010

lets keep fixing this trope. i dont want to see Mr. Krabs or Alejandro here again.

MagBas

06:31:35 PM Sep 28th 2010edited by MagBas

I also guess that we must keep fixing this trope, this trope yet have one strong non-subjective factor. Let's examine the requisites one by one:

The character must personally engage in a series of truly horrendous acts, and the story makes no attempt to gloss these over or present them in a positive light. Acts concealed behind a Villainy Discretion Shot or by a distant Mook don't count. The Complete Monster usually starts at the Moral Event Horizon and keeps on running, though nothing excludes them becoming one through Character Development.

"Truly horrendous acts"- subjective. "the story makes no attempt to gloss these over or present them in a positive light"-non subjective. "Acts concealed behind a Villainy Discretion Shot or by the distant Mook don't count"-non-subjective.

The character must evoke fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story. If there are other villains around, they are afraid of/dislike this person, too — Even Evil Has Standards, after all (in particularly disturbing stories, with particularly evil villains, even lesser Complete Monsters may fear such a character). If the other characters in the story treat the character as a joke or don't take them seriously, they fail to qualify.

Totally non subjective.

There is no adequate justification or Freudian Excuse to balance out the misdeeds.

Totally subjective

The character must show no regret or remorse for their actions, however terrible. It's better if they obviously enjoy it, but complete lack of emotion or caring will suffice.

Totally non-subjective.

Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption without being considered a Karma Houdini. The only way the story could come to anything resembling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed. A Heel–Face Turn is out of the question, and nobody would believe it if it happened. There can be no Redemption Equals Death for this character, and no Fate Worse Than Death is too extreme.

Thanks for this, Mag Bas. I'll be using it as semi-guidelines to keep in mind for my cleanup attempt.

Iaculus

04:25:37 AM Oct 25th 2010

Point Three can get an automatic pass, though, if the story doesn't even mention something that could be vaguely considered as a justification or Freudian Excuse. Some Complete Monsters just don't get that much backstory.

ading

02:17:38 PM Jul 28th 2011

Point 5 is still inescapably subjective, though.

BigglesTh9

04:29:41 AM Nov 29th 2011

The idea that morality is subjective reeks of many things: chiefly laziness. Yes, there are many instances right and wrong are unclear. But we'd all agree that torturing people For the Evulz is wrong (and even if none of us thought so, it would still be so). We could at least try to decide on a threshold for "truly horrendous acts".

ading

05:47:08 AM Feb 14th 2013

^ evil acts=/=evil people. And even then, there's still the issue of "do they have an adequate Freudian Excuse". The problem with deciding on a threshold is that even if we did, it would still be impossible to agree on what passes that threshold and what doesn't.

I was thinking of removing Cruella, Grimhilde, and maybe Maleficent from the Disney section... though I'm not very familiar with Maleficent... I actually added her beforehand even though I haven't watched the entirety of the movie she's from. Cruella's mostly cruel to nonhumans, Grimhilde to one or two humans, and Maleficent to her minions and a few humans. The list has since grown so much that I feel compelled to remove all but the most clear-cut cases of Complete Monster status.

Why exactly are "Real Life" examples of Complete Monsters not allowed?
A) The possibility that someone who admires truly dangerous people will troll this site?
B) The fact that most of them were political figures?

Nebro_Gnosis

07:25:52 PM Sep 3rd 2010

Probably because it would get out of hand really fast. The likes of Hitler and Stalin are obvious, but before you know it people will be adding, like, Hugo Chavez or George W. Bush or Sarkozy or whatever.

ManwiththePlan

07:09:15 AM Sep 7th 2010

Or Woodrow Wilson or Richard Nixon or Tony Blair....you get the point.

Fighteer

07:20:35 AM Sep 7th 2010

Because we are not about Real Life on this wiki. Tropes do not apply to real people by definition. Real Life is tolerated as a category if it stays on topic and is always subject to being excised if it threatens to devolve into a Flame War or attract Natter.

Nithael

01:56:46 PM Sep 9th 2010

Also, as an unnamed troper said in the archived discussion of the trope,

" As I see it, the problem is that in real life, unsympathetic villains are so overwhelmingly common as to render any listing pointless. In the past, people just added on to the list any murderer or dictator they happen to think of, whether they're particularly monstrous or just an ordinary example of human cruelty. Obviously, I'm not sole arbiter of this, so feel free to shout me down, but I predict it'll just turn into a really long list of nasty people and a bunch of discussions about whether such-and-such was really so bad and so on. "

94.12.107.254

11:24:18 AM Dec 11th 2010

Has anyone seen The Cove? If you have, you'll know that in Taiji, Japan, there exists a horde of Complete Monsters. It's implied that they kill dolphins just for fun or to prove how manly they are and some of them are known to be very young. They also wanted the meat, a primary source of mercury poisoning to be used in school dinners. You just have to look up the symptoms of mercury poisoning to know how much nightmare fuel is involved. And school dinners are compulsory there,

Mr. Burns? Seriously? Yes, he's evil and he blotted out the sun among other acts, but that's still a far cry from this trope. To say he doesn't elicit sympathy sounds...wrong to be honest. Also, crossing a Moral Event Horizon in and of itself does not mean they've become a Complete Monster.

Inferno232

07:03:09 PM Aug 6th 2010edited by Inferno232

Mr. Burns is intentionally a Complete Monster in the show. He's willing to do ANYTHING for a buck, or just For the Evulz. However, where this gets tricky is that he's played for laughs. Very few Simpsons villains are ever taken seriously. Barely anything in the show is taken seriously. Occasionally there may be a moral or a political Take That, but that's it.

In other words, he's an example of how this trope can be played comedically. He completely lacks morals and if he has standards they aren't very high.

How in God's name can this trope stay afloat when there are always fifty people ready to jump to any given character's defense as to why he's not a complete monster and argue any attempt to label him as such into the ground?

Jerrik

03:44:02 PM Jul 18th 2010

Is this about Sasuke?

Inferno232

07:00:29 PM Aug 6th 2010

From what I've seen, it's about ay given character in any given medium.

Hannibal is capable of empathy. He empathises with Clarice Starling, his mother, father and sister, Lady Murasaki, Mason Verger's sister and the children Mason has abused. He's not an antihero by any stretch of the imagination but he is a Well-Intentioned Extremist. He is protective of children, kind to those who are kind to him and (usually) chivalrous towards women. Complete Monsters have NO redeeming traits. They have empathy for no-one. Hannibal Lector, while undeniably an evil man is by no stretch of the imagination a CM.

The whole Family Guy argument about whether or not Quagmire and Peter qualify as monsters or not gets on my nerves. I haven't watched the show all that much, really, and I can't determine whether or not they qualify, but let me ask, should they be in the section? The argument needs to end.

The character must evoke fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story. If there are other villains around, they are afraid of/dislike this person, too — Even Evil Has Standards, after all. If the other characters in the story treat the character as a joke or don't take them seriously, they fail to qualify.

No justification or Freudian Excuse is present, or adequate to explain away the deeds if one exists.

The character must show no regret or remorse for their actions, however terrible. It's better if they obviously enjoy it, but complete lack of emotion or caring will suffice.

Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption without being considered a Karma Houdini. The only way the story could come to anything resembling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed. A Heel–Face Turn is out of the question, and nobody would believe it if it happened. There can be no Redemption Equals Death for this character, and no Fate Worse Than Death is too extreme.

neoYTPism

06:36:43 PM Jun 2nd 2010edited by neoYTPism

I'm not sure about Quagmire, but I think Peter's "evil" is WAY too mild to deserve the Complete Monster label.

EDIT: Since you put the qualifications there, I'd say "if other characters don't take this character seriously they fail to qualify" is more than enough of an indication that Peter fails to qualify.

Etheru

03:02:39 PM Jun 3rd 2010

This discussion was just to kind of end a conflict that's been going on about if they qualify or not, I don't care if they qualify or don't, the arguments have to stop. Right now, it looks like they don't qualify.

neoYTPism

05:20:48 PM Jun 3rd 2010

"I don't care if they qualify or don't, the arguments have to stop. Right now, it looks like they don't qualify." - Etheru

Then I would point the blame at those who continue to call those characters Complete Monsters. Obviously, they do not meet the criteria, which should not be a surprise since their "evil" is very mild and dealt with way too lightly to come close to the category.

Etheru

10:00:20 PM Jun 3rd 2010edited by Etheru

I'm sorry about that, I wasn't really pointing the blame at you, sorry for coming off as aggressive, but I'll direct them to this discussion the next time they do it...

So is a "Complete Monster" defined by the extent of evil and/or the lack of moral justification for their actions, or does it also imply that they aren't supposed to be funny or cool while doing so? I recall a previous definition of "Complete Monster" on this site implying the latter, (though it seems to have been changed since) but what about the Joker from Dark Knight? I haven't watched the movie, but that villain is considered funny and cool while also being considered extremely evil, and from the Joker scenes I've seen I agree.

But if the "Complete Monster" category depends on said villain not being cool or funny, then wouldn't that suggest that "extremely evil" villains who are also cool and funny (like the Joker) should be put into a separate category of villain?

So if the idea is that "Evilly Affable" is the category for those who are funny/cool while being extremely evil, whereas "Complete Monster" is for those who aren't, then why are some characters in both categories?

T Vtropes should just pick an approach and stick with it. Either:
A) "Complete Monster" refers to how extremely evil they are and just that
or B) If it doesn't include ones who manage to be cool/funny, then it never should.

Iaculus

01:51:07 PM May 30th 2010

It's an evolving wiki with multiple contributors, not a Hive Mind. You see folks who are in the wrong section according to the description, you shift 'em over yourself.

neoYTPism

04:18:28 PM May 30th 2010

Yeah, but when the description itself changes, it's hard to tell what category they fall into, especially when sometimes they fall into both. (Dark Knight's Joker comes to mind)

insofar

07:34:08 PM May 30th 2010

"Funny" and "cool" are subjective. How the villains are perceived by individual viewers is of no issue because the page had long been rewritten to emphasize objectivity.

neoYTPism

01:11:23 PM May 31st 2010

Ok then, so wouldn't that suggest that "Complete Monster" refers to how evil they are, and isn't affected by how funny or cool they are? So shouldn't things like "funny" and "cool" (which I agree are subjective) be treated as irrelevant when discussing whether or not a character fits the category of "Complete Monster"?

insofar

01:25:16 PM May 31st 2010

Yes, I completely agree with that. Anyway, these tropes are not mutually exclusive.

I've completed the process of spinning off all examples into their own pages. Not really sure why someone only did it halfway.

xie323

04:12:37 PM Apr 9th 2010

Cause they're too short?

SomeGuy

04:18:31 PM Apr 9th 2010edited by SomeGuy

True, but it's not like they were that short. The spares looked fugly as all heck crowded onto this page. Better to have a uniformly aesthetically pleasing layout than one that looks vaguely ugly.

xie323

08:27:29 PM Apr 10th 2010

Or merge them into an "other" folder.

insofar

05:05:12 PM Apr 11th 2010

Thank you, it really did look awfully ugly.

Paireon

10:12:30 PM Apr 21st 2010edited by Paireon

Good idea, but I'd push it one bit further. Although standard policy is "add new articles at bottom", I think related entries should be put next to (before/after) each other for ease of browsing and consultation. I already did it for the "videogames" page (admitedly that one was already pretty tidy, I only had to move 3-4 entries, so separate entries for Nasuverse, Armored Core and Wild Arms could be seen simultaneously/successively). What do other tropers think?

No, most aren't. And even if they were, our examples here do not comprise a comprehensive list. The reason I keep removing it is because it is averted as often as it's deployed (if it's deployed intentionally at all), and it takes up space. The write-up is already too long, and people are obviously not reading it (hence the examples that are constantly contested and deleted), so we should be getting rid of anything that isn't directly related to the trope.

You may simply be looking at an inversion of Beauty Equals Goodness, which, again, is incidental to this trope.

I can see what you're trying to say, but honestly, most of the characters that spring to mind when I think of this trope are not particularly ugly. A Complete Monster is are commonly given good looks to create a creepy disconnect with their personalities, or because the author has just decided that Evil Is Sexy, or because of some 'Fallen Angel' symbolism or what have you.

It certainly doesn't belong on the checklist, since I don't think anyone's arguing that there's no such thing as an attractive Complete Monster.

Well, the first character to come mind is of course Johan from Monster. Szayel Aporro from Bleach, Envy from Fullmetal Alchemist and the Major from Hellsing come behind him. The Major is admitted not particularly attractive, but he's not exactly monstrous either. On other hand, Johan is fairly attractive, and Szayel is downright homoerotic. Envy has a monstrous true form, but his regular one is fairly average.

Note that I was trying to be as objective as possible with my picks, choosing only the first ones that came to mind.

Monsund

07:20:43 PM Apr 6th 2010

I'll do a quick rewrite. Tell me what you think.

insofar

09:25:35 PM Apr 6th 2010edited by insofar

I think the word "most" doesn't belong in any objective write-up. Again, it's not really that there aren't any old or ugly complete monsters, just that this type of thing is neither necessary nor common enough to point out in the introduction. If anything, we might be looking at a common clause of Beauty Equals Goodness which should become a subtrope in itself. But to jam it in here, where it's not really all that relevant, is a bit gratuitous.

76.89.145.110

09:49:55 AM Aug 29th 2010

I do have one question. What is it called when the actions of the complete monster (the ones that cross the moral event horizon) follow a clearly identifiable and consistent pattern? For example, said evil actions being directed the most severely towards family members (including the complete monster's own), groups with a clan identification (an "extended family" setting, if you will), romantic settings (all bets are off when it comes to a very serious love interest of one of the main characters about to reach fruition, preventing a family a progeny from taking place or making it, to put it lightly, miserable), and issues concerning national affiliations of other characters (another extension of the family metaphor).

The writeup is waaay too long. No wonder people aren't reading the article and we end up with examples that in no way apply. I'm thinking of pruning the corollaries to the basics - no attempt at atonement, no adequate Freudian Excuse, no well intentioned extremism. Most of the rest seem to be frequently subverted and really do nothing to prove the rule.

Also, there is absolutely no reason for the corollaries to be so elaborate. If you need a paragraph to explain the clause, it means that the initial statement needs to be reworded into something more accessible and concise.

doomsday524

09:22:38 PM Jan 14th 2012

I disagree that a Freudian Excuse is enough to get out of this trope. After all, Hitler had a Freudian Excuse since his stepfather used to beat him. It didn't excuse committing genocide on millions of people.

ading

02:00:58 PM Mar 31st 2013

Lots of people in Real Life committed genocide. There are so many people in Real Life who have done heinous actions that the standards for a real person to be an example are so high they're impossible to meet, or at least would have to make Hitler look like Gandhi.

For all we know that child is the kid of some evil mob leader and Johann's expression is because he's an Anti-Hero who's tired of putting up with the crap of having to be a goody two-shoes all the time. It takes more than pointing a gun at a kid to be a Complete Monster.

I disagree, Someguy. With a trope name like that it's implied that he doesn't just point and gets the point across just fine to me.

insofar

03:21:53 PM Apr 4th 2010

"For all we know that child is the kid of some evil mob leader and Johann's expression is because he's an Anti Hero who's tired of putting up with the crap of having to be a goody two-shoes all the time."

I think it's rather safe to assume that most people will not construe the horrified looking kid who appears to be no older than ten as a hardened crime boss, nor find anything remotely heroic in a guy indifferently pointing a gun at anyone.

Seikai

12:35:07 AM Apr 5th 2010

Gotta agree with insofar. That's making a broad, very intricate assumption. Who automatically thinks that some emotionless-looking guy, pointing a gun at a terrified little boy has such an elaborate reason like that? That's like saying a picture of some maniac burning down an orphanage and killing newborns wouldn't illustrate this because people would automatically assume that the orphanage was evil and the newborns were devil incarnates.

SomeGuy

01:30:44 PM Apr 9th 2010

Are we reading the same page here? I'd wager roughly three-quarters of the examples involve villains engaging in acts roughly ten times as evil as "point a gun at a kid for reasons not clear", and I'm including the iffy examples in that prognosis. I think a good argument can be made that the relatively low threshold for villainy implied by that picture is part of the reason why examples keep cropping up that really don't pass muster.

insofar

05:13:09 PM Apr 11th 2010

The reason why the image of Johann pointing the gun at a small, petrified child conveys the idea so successfully is because it's a realistic action. It's disturbing and chilling in its simplicity and plausibility in a way that a flanderized maniac cackling over thousands of corpses can never be.

74.197.103.196

11:36:29 AM Jun 10th 2010edited by 74.197.103.196

While what I've read about Johann definitely qualifies him for the spot, why can't we put up a universal picture for complete monster, such as a picture of You-Know-Who?

True, in most cases Real LifeComplete Monsters are not allowed, but that is only because most likely not everyone would agree that the Real Life example was a Complete Monster. In regards to Hitler, however, you would be hard pressed to find someone who disagreed.

Fighteer

05:03:33 PM Jan 25th 2011

Irrelevant. Real Life people cannot be examples of this trope. Violate this rule at your peril.

67.223.208.204

08:45:06 PM Apr 5th 2011edited by ading

Well... How about an image of John Snyder from The Hitcher? Definitely more familiar.

"For all we know that child is the kid of some evil mob leader and Johann's expression is because he's an Anti Hero who's tired of putting up with the crap of having to be a goody two-shoes all the time."

The guy with the gun is BEHIND the child, and the child is looking backward at him terrified. It's obviously not self-defense. It's also obvious from the positioning and the expression on the man's face that he's not some terrified fugitive desperately using the child as a hostage to save his own life.

I will agree that pointing a gun at a kid does not guarantee that a character fits this trope. The circumstances you described would be an example of why it doesn't.

Unless you have a picture of someone with a smoking AK-47 in hand raping a pile of bullet-filled nuns and orphans (that isn't High Octane Nightmare Fuel), the current picture works. Actually, even that wouldn't guarantee it, because what if the nuns were all carrying a deadly disease that almost necessitates killing them and the character has a Freudian Excuse for raping them? Maybe we need to show the shooter's nice-looking parents trying to stop him, and have Jesus in the background shaking his head in disapproval! That still wouldn't prove that the shooter doesn't have positive qualities, though, so we'll need the shooter to be wearing a nametag that says "Ted" and have a piece of paper in-view that says "Ted's positive qualities: none. -signed, someone with good judgement who's been watching him since he killed his twin sister in the womb." We should throw in a speech bubble in which Ted says "I'm doing this because I hate everything good!" as a safety measure in case it's not clear enough. Wait! I forgot irrefutable proof that the person with the smoking gun who's the only armed person visible is the shooter!

Okay, who deleted Sasuke from under the Naruto examples? I'd like a good explanation for this one, because it seems to me that he's a pretty good way over the horizon. Pwning Danzo would normally count as Kick the Son of a Bitch, but doing it by stabbing THROUGH one of your new Nakama with the same dispassionnate nonchalance you show when slaughtering Mooks, you're not a very nice person anymore. Now we need to get him a new wardrobe, preferably without as many leather pants.

Jerrik

10:57:35 PM Mar 26th 2010

I haven't really been a part of it, but there has been quite a bit of discussion about Sasuke being a Complete Monster on the character page and the forums. You should probably check one of those places.

The fact that he has a Freudian Excuse and needed 400 chapters worth of Start of Darkness to get where he is should tip you off regardless of how pathetic you view his storyline to be but even then, all the examples you mentioned happened within hours of each other and contradict previous behaviour, we have better tropes for this: Roaring Rampage of Revenge, Go Mad from the Revelation and Villainous Breakdown. Also keep in mind that Zabuza used to be this trope, until he was redeemed, Gaara was this trope, until he was redeemed, Nagato was this trope, until he was redeemed. Naruto characters have gone in and out of this trope way to easily in the past, something that really shouldn't be possible with Complete Monster as it is supposed to be the absolute worst of the worst a villain can be, Kishimoto doesn't seem to believe in people being beyond redemption, save the few that are in the trope right now.

There are multiple characters, Orochimaru, Madara, Gato, Hidan, and probably Kabuto being the most obvious ones, who he seems to emphasize very clearly are beyond redemption, so although redemption is a theme, I disagree that he doesn't beleive some people are so bad they do not have any good in them and fit as CMs.

Subjective vs objective again. This trope was rewritten to be objective, so anything that involves "awesome" or "fandom" has absolutely nothing to do with the criteria of the trope anymore. If the villain is comic on purpose, that's another thing though.

VVK

02:26:09 PM Mar 23rd 2010

Well, he is, among other things. I agree about his having no place here.

No Just No. I, someone who actually read Order of the Stick, can actually vouch against Xykon's inclusion here. I mean, come on! True, some of his actions are not really portrayed as being funny, but those are a few exceptions. Xykon is the poster boy for Evilly Affable and most of his atrocities are not just portrayed as being funny, but they are funny. Seriously, for example, do you gasp when he sacrifices his minions?. Do you really cry for the death of the celestial? And if you still don't believe that Xykon doesn't deserve to be here, well... would a Complete Monster have a substantial fanbase? Well, would they? A Complete Monster is not just someone that is "really, really evil" but someone who is irredeemable in ways that are not, I repeat not entertaining to the audience. The mere fact that Xykon would have his own section on the Order of the Stick Crowning Moment of Awesome page eliminates him from being a Complete Monster

Elle

07:32:06 PM Apr 14th 2010

The description of Complete Monster has been revised again after a long-ish Trope Repair Shop discussion and you might want to re-evaluate Xykon in light of it. It no longer excludes characters based on likability and allows more room for Magnificent Bastard and Affably Evil / Evily Affable characters, focusing on their deeds and motivation.

Paireon

07:52:27 AM Apr 22nd 2010

Agreeing with Elle. Ali Al-Saachez, Kefka and Johann have substantial fanbases, yet are also Complete Monsters. I've read the entire run of Order of the Stick as well, and while under the old, subjective trope definition he wouldn't have fitted, the new more objective one fits him like a glove.

OK, I talked about this before (and so have others), but I really don't think the Maleficent and Gaston entries (under Western Animation) should be there. While both are very clearly Bad People(tm), I don't believe they fit the standard, as none really go above and beyond in their evil.

For starters, Maleficent is an early modern take on The Fair Folk, and while in the thirties and early forties she might have seemed monstrous, by current standards she's pretty much run-of-the-mill Classic Villain material. Sure, you cheer her death, but at the end, virtually all of her evil deeds are undone, nobody's left traumatized (or even dead, if I remember), and her idea of Mind Rape isn't particularly scary for anyone over 12. I haven't heard anyone ever mention how loathsome she was; most consider her pretty awesome.
As for Gaston, I'll admit he's a walking talking Kick the Dog moment, but it makes him look more like a cartoonish Jerk Jock than this trope. He's even Evilly Affable enough to have undergone a minor Memetic Mutation once upon a time; most people think of him as an amusing (if villainous) buffoon for his acts. Complete Monsters aren't that entertaining (except The Joker, but he's a special case).

So, both are far too entertaining for this trope, and their bastardry doesn't translate into a desire to go through the screen and throttle them like other examples. If these two stay, we might as well add Cinderella's stepmother (who was a lot more personal about her villainy), Ursula (who sought to inflict A Fate Worse Than Death rather than just death to the heroine and her father), Clayton (who's much more sinister and duplicitous), and Jaffar (who probably pushes villainy as far as it can go without crossing the Moral Event Horizon). And all of those still aren't as repulsively, nightmarishly evil as Frollo or the evil queen from Snow white.

Maleficent is Nightmare Fuel because she goes One-Winged Angel. Frollo is Nightmare Fuel because he's a murderous, sexually obsessed bigot who plans a small-scale genocide while using his position and his faith as justifications for his atrocities. Methinks the difference is pretty big.

SomeGuy

08:24:47 PM Apr 4th 2010

While you make a good argument it would be a lot less disorienting if you expressed your concerns on Western AnimationComplete Monster discussion page, where the examples are actually located.

I see that the Big Bossman has been added under Professional Wrestling, but whatever happened to Jake "The Snake" Roberts entry?

Paireon

03:51:09 PM Mar 6th 2010

No idea, but I remember it too, just not well enough to rewrite it. I think it fit the trope pretty well by Professional Wrestling standards. It definitely should be put back in IMO.

Marikina

05:05:18 AM Mar 25th 2010edited by Marikina

Removed some of the examples under Professional Wrestling. The Randy Orton, CM Punk, and Bossman entries don't affect the tone of the work, and in the case of Orton and Punk either men can be faces again without a major change in character despite their actions (in fact, Orton already has done so).

Marikina

11:18:07 AM Mar 27th 2010edited by Marikina

"Larfleeze: Sorry but BBM basically torturted Big Show for shits and giggles and Punk managed to turn a mixed reaction to his Straight Edge gimmick to total hatred with one promo. It stays."

The trope write-up pretty much says it takes more that a laundry list of For the Lulz and being Obviously Evil to be a Complete Monster. It doesn't matter how many vile acts the Bossman did; as your write-up itself stated, the whole thing is played for laughs, and to be a Complete Monster means to have your actions affect the story in a serious manner.

Same goes for Orton. The thing with Eddie and Rey is Cheap Heat at best, and nobody cared about what he did to the Mc Mahons. And one year later he's a popular babyface, despite being the same character.

And one promo alone doesn't make Punk an entry.

MacPhisto

03:25:40 PM Apr 3rd 2010

Orton & Punk may not belong, but the Big Bossman certainly does. His feud with Big Show wasn't Played for Laughs. Show wasn't even the World champion when the feud began. Bossman was just doing it to satisfy his own sadism.

124.158.42.68

08:16:17 PM Apr 4th 2010

"The Big Bossman certainly does. His feud with Big Show wasn't Played For Laughs. Show wasn't even the World champion when the feud began. Bossman was just doing it to satisfy his own sadism."

It takes more than a character doing things For the Evulz to be a Complete Monster. As the trope definition itself states, "the character should affect the tone of the work". The Bossman's entry itself admits that his angles come off as humorous and Crosses the Line Twice; there;s a reason why it's inducted into Wrestle Crap. Which is why IMO it doesn't belong.

MacPhisto

05:58:04 PM Apr 23rd 2010

fair enough, though if it was Played Straight, he would've been right up there with Johan.

76.89.145.110

09:45:30 AM Aug 23rd 2010

This is likely will raise a few eyebrows, but I am curious if it is possible for a Complete Monster to pretty much step out of the role and begin the process of atoning for the past. I'm not referring to the character in question becoming an immediate protagonist or antagonist (too much too fast on that one). I am referring more to the character being successfully able to extricate themselves from a rather fixed position, and then pretty much begin the process of going along an alternate path.

There are a few constants I can think of in this kind of scenario that may prove to be unavoidable. First, upon giving this thought, I don't see any way a character can ultimately do this without some form of help (though the initial decision to begin the process would need to be up to them). Second, I'm thinking that the character in question would need to avoid the original circumstances that were the main acting stage for the malice (probably best if the people hurt by the character don't see too much of him/her as well).

That's about all I can think of for right now actually. I guess I'm kind of getting tired of this type of position being seen as something that ultimately possesses the highest degree of endurance (in terms of character traits, never ever getting out of it no matter what, how long and severely it affects other characters and the world setting, etc) then any other character development out there. Then again, I also may be lacking in some understanding in terms of the attributes and motivations involved in the Complete Monster. I'd like to know what others think about this one.

Actually, this does take some of the edge off and gives some space with which to work in this regard. Can't say that I can understand how a Complete Monster forms in the first place (this is only my opinion, and will be happy to see arguments in this regard).

Community

Tropes HQ

TVTropes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org. Privacy Policy